Remove 2016 Remove Intellectual Property Law Remove Moral Rights
article thumbnail

IT’S THE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT FOR ME: WHY CLAIMS AGAINST MEME CONTENT SHOULD NOT MATTER

JIPL Online

xxiv] Intellectual property law recognizes a limited monopoly-esque property right for the creator. xxv] Bargaining between rights holders and potential users can be described as a form of bilateral monopoly meaning that the transaction costs of bargaining are extremely high. 139 (2016). [ix]

article thumbnail

The Modern Copyright Dilemma: Digital Content Ownership and Access

IP and Legal Filings

Introduction The Intellectual property laws are designed in such a way that not only reward the creator of his intellectual creation thereby incentivising other creators for further innovation, while balancing the rights of the creator with the right of the society to access information or knowledge.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Copyright case law of the German Bundesgerichtshof 2015 – 2019 – Part 4 of 4: Copyright contract law and enforcement

Kluwer Copyright Blog

Travel costs which a journalist incurs in the course of their research do not fall within the scope of application of Section 32 UrhG, but merely remuneration for the use of rights. In the area of collecting societies, a very important decision was issued in 2016. Collecting Societies. International aspects.

article thumbnail

Copyright case law of the German Bundesgerichtshof 2015 – 2019 – Part 1 of 4: Definition of a work, authorship and moral rights

Kluwer Copyright Blog

In order to bring readers up to date on earlier developments, over the next few days we will be republishing in four parts an article (originally published in “Auteurs & Media”) summarising case law from 2015 to 2019 organised by topic. This first part covers the definition of a work, authorship and moral rights.